Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

Status
Not open for further replies.

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Engines101, a great couple of posts in this thread. Thank you.

Whilst you are replacing the ARH with F35B in CAS role can the F35 do the recon role, trade offs, not saying it can't be done like that but what is the impact when doing joint air ops and the amphibious element. Considering we have to make room for F35B, ARH, Chinnook, MRH 90.
May I ask a couple of questions? Are you guys talking in terms of an Australian only operation with the Canberra Class LHDs? Or would you factor in coalition support for the ADF?

Buy a 3rd Canberra class LHD and configure it as a carrier first (F35Bs, helos, with loading bay turned into hangers and weapon storage) with supplementary amphibious/landing capability, ie, carrying the typical LCMs, and potentially carrying special forces equipment instead of carrying army assets.
It is a given that for a repeat of an East Timor like operation (UN Chapter 7), the navies of UK, NZ and Singapore will form part of the coalition with your country's forces. It is more than likely that all FPDA members will provide force contributions for ground operations.

The reason I am asking is because, it is quite clear that Singapore is trying to develop complementary capabilities to support Australian operations in range of contingencies.
 
Last edited:

rjtjrt

Member
@Engines101, a great couple of posts in this thread. Thank you.


May I ask a couple of questions? Are you guys talking in terms of an Australian only operation? Or would you factor in coalition support for the ADF?


It is a given that for a repeat of an East Timor like operation (UN Chapter 7), the navies of UK, NZ and Singapore will form part of the coalition with your country's forces. It is more than likely that all FPDA members will provide force contributions for ground operations.

The reason I am asking is because, it is quite clear that Singapore is trying to develop complementary capabilities to support Australian operations in range of contingencies.
OPSS
Can you detail what Singapore has contributed to the Timor op, and to Afghanistan since then?
They are always very professional, and very welcome.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
OPSSG
Can you detail what Singapore has contributed to the Timor op, and to Afghanistan since then?
1. IMO, ASEAN member participation helps provide 'legitimacy' and political support for Australian forces in regional operations. Before I talk about older operations, there are three more recent 2013 exercises using amphibious assets that are relevant to Australia and Singapore.

One, Australians and Singaporeans working together in Exercise Trident in 2013 while embarked on the RSS Resolution (see replies #84 and #85 of the Singapore Army picture thread).

Two, in the June 2013 HADR and Military Medicine Exercise in Brunei (see reply #3 in the ADMM Plus picture thread onwards), in which both Australia and Singapore took part, with Australia as a ADMM Plus member.

Three, in Kiwi led Exercise Southern Katipo 2013, some coalition countries (including Australia, Canada, France, US and Singapore) participated in, on this point (see reply #90 of the Singapore Army picture thread).

2. In the 1991 Gulf War, a 30-strong SAF medical team led by the then MAJ (Dr) Tan Chi Chiu was deployed and based in the British Army Rear Hospital at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh. The strategic relationship continued as Singapore gave the US permission to land aircraft en route to Kuwait and Iraq traveling from the United States and Asia during the 1991 Gulf War (Operation Desert Shield) and also in the 2003 invasion of Iraqi (Operation Iraqi Freedom). Beyond just giving landing rights, Singapore is also a burden sharing partner with the US and it is done in a manner that reinforces the relationship between US, Australia and Singapore. With regard to older operations that both Australia and Singapore have participated in support of peace support operations, I am sure you are aware that:-

(i) over 1,400 Singaporeans have operated under CTF 151 as part of the counter-piracy effort in the Gulf of Aden. Singaporean boarding teams have faced off with pirates and sank their attack skiffs in Operation Blue Sapphire;

(ii) 492 Singaporeans have served in Afghanistan. For details on Operation Blue Ridge, see: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1KnsrozJfw"]Singapore Army: Operation Blue Ridge (OBR) Documentary - Full Version - YouTube[/nomedia];

(iii) over 1,500 reservists (aka NSmen), NSFs and regulars were deployed to provide humanitarian assistance to Meulaboh, Aceh, an area with an active insurgency, in January 2005. In the case of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami:-

(a) Commander 21st Division (a 1 star) and his command staff were deployed to Banda Aceh in support humanitarian operations under Operation Flying Eagle. Within days of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, the 21st Division (Singapore Guards) landed a reinforced battalion size force, in multiple phases - with combat engineers creating beach-heads, clearing roads of debris and providing drinking water; with medical and surgical teams providing care for the injured; with a command team to plan and manage the massive logistics required to help the locals

(b) RSS Endurance was the first foreign navy ship to re-establish a life-line to Meulaboh (a coastal town in West Sumatra that was previously completely cut off after the tsunami). Singapore's contributions to Indonesia included the deployment of three Endurance Class LPDs, eight CH-47 Chinooks and four Super Pumas, six C-130s, two F-50s, a mobile air traffic control tower (see this video: http://youtu.be/jnZVrs5Sjp4).

(c) With host nation support in Singapore, US Commands (Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific and Naval Regional Contracting Center Singapore) worked 24/7 to surge supply capacity in support of the humanitarian effort in Operation Unified Assistance.

(d) During the conduct of Operation Unified Assistance by US PACOM, two SAF officers proficiently in Bahasa Indonesia, with in-depth knowledge of Indonesian culture, psyche, and sensitivities to the presence of foreign military forces, were posted as Liaison Officers to enable the US to deliver aid to Indonesia with less fiction;​

and

(iv) 998 Singaporeans from the army, navy and air force served in Iraq and the Northern Arabian Gulf from 2004 to 2008. The SAF deployments in support of Operation Blue Orchid included:-

(a) Navy: 5x deployments of Endurance Class LPDs for the seaward defence of Iraq for 300 days against suicide boat attacks - which included NDU boarding teams conducting routine inspection of ships and dhows for explosives and other threats to protect Iraqi's two oil terminals. The Singapore Navy also trained the Iraqi Navy and helped them extend their operating range by refueling their patrols boats at sea (see this video on SAF in Iraq: [nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpC4TTkT8Iw[/nomedia]);

(b) Air Force: 1x C-130 deployment for 2 months carrying men, cargo and equipment and performing evasive manoeuvres for about 1/3 of their 29 missions completed in 190 hrs of flight time (in the above video, you can see the force protection team deployed with the C-130); 5x KC-135R deployments for 3 months, each, all facing the danger of short-range SAM attacks with 303 missions completed in 1,800 hrs of flight time; and

(c) Army: 4 officers, each, serving a 6 month tour under coalition command in Iraq.​

3. Going further back, after a UN-sponsored vote for independence in 1999, Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor) was engulfed by conflict. In September 1999, Australia was desperate for an ASEAN partner to deploy into East Timor. Thanks to Dr. Mahathir's prior political stance, Malaysian troops were seen by the locals, Australia, NZ and the US as taking a pro-Indonesian or non-neutral position with regards to events in Timor-Leste (eg. The NY Times reported that Ramos-Horta was opposed to Malaysia being given command of UN troops and that such a move would anger the East Timorese). Thailand was the first ASEAN country to volunteer, followed by Singapore and the Philippines. Thereafter, Thai and Singaporean military and ships deployed in support of the Australia and New Zealand-led international stabilization force were instrumental in maintaining ASEAN's credibility, at a difficult time — with the then Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir casting aspersions on the lead country conducting peace-enforcement operations in East Timor. The SAF deployed to conduct UN peace-enforcement patrols at Cova Lima, in south-western Timor-Leste with a mandate under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. These combat peacekeeping deployments:-

(i) started in May 2001 with 70 Singaporean combat peacekeepers stationed at Cova Lima in Operation Blue Heron. The deployment of this enlarged platoon lasted for a period of one-and-a-half years till November 2002. The conduct of these border patrols, intelligence gathering efforts, and presence of a quick reaction force enabled the SAF to disarm militia-men and criminal elements in their assigned sector, to stop the cycle of violence;

(ii) continued in November 2002. The number of Singaporean combat peacekeepers deployed to Cova Lima was enlarged to a company sized force of a 160 troops as reports of groups terrorizing the villages between the border and Dili grew in number till early 2003. Singapore's combat peacekeeper company was supported by a RSAF helicopter detachment comprising four Huey helicopters, with a Singaporean Major General taking command of UNMISET forces of 3,300 peacekeepers from August 2002 to August 2003. The Singapore combat peacekeepers operated as part of THAIBATT with responsibility for half of the border between West Timor and Timor-Leste — AUSBATT having responsibility for the other half. The increase in numbers and the insertion of Singaporean long-range recce patrols by RSAF Huey helicopters into the jungle to track hostile elements crossing the border was instrumental in stopping the cycle of violence. 17 reservists and 10 full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) were among those who volunteered and were deployed for the combat peacekeeping mission; and

(iii) lasted till December 2012 (at a lower level), with the end of the UN mandate. At early stage of the peacekeeping mission under INTERFET, Singapore Navy's 3 LSTs provided up to 50% of all sea-lift to support the UN peacekeeping mission via a continuous ferry service dbetween Darwin and Dili (for details see 'Strength through Diversity: The Combined Naval Role in Operation Stabilise'). Thereafter, Singapore has consistently provided troops for deployment to Timor-Leste and only ending these small deployments in December 2012.​

4. There is an article from the Second Line of Defense on the Italian ship that is worth a read (RE-THINKING THE ROLE OF THE SMALLER DECK CARRIER: THE CASE OF CAVOUR). A ship like the Cavour, operating F-35Bs, can form a centerpiece of a maritime operational force or provide overwatch and strike support for an allied coalition force, seen as a distributed force.

5. It is not a secret, in 2014, that Singapore is looking for a Joint Multi-Mission Ship (quite possibly a LHA), possibly similar in capabilities to the Italian Cavour; and in the 2020s looking at the F-35B as the RSAF's F-16C/D replacement. The cycle of planning has started for the RSAF. Recently, 5 new Singaporean pilots earned their wings in a course conducted in Italy (see reply #37 in this RSAF picture thread). This has occurred against the backdrop of the Memorandum of Understanding on Defence Cooperation between Italy and Singapore that was signed in February 2012.

6. If you look further back at military to military relations between US and Singapore, it is clear that the Americans have committed resources to help facilitate a Singapore decision on which F-35 type to acquire. A case in point, the conduct of Exercise Commando Sling 12-1. ‘Commando Sling’ is the code name for a series of bilateral air combat exercises between the US and Singapore. Commando Sling 12-1 stands out as one of the more remarkable exercises.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Buy a 3rd Canberra class LHD and configure it as a carrier first (F35Bs, helos, with loading bay turned into hangers and weapon storage) with supplementary amphibious/landing capability, ie, carrying the typical LCMs, and potentially carrying special forces equipment instead of carrying army assets.
Definitely an option as would be acquiring an LPD to take over equipment and elements displaced from the LHD. Even just a third LHD built to the same baseline as the first pair and the ADF acquires / develops roro mission modules to support the F-35B on any one of the three LHDs. Lots of different options.

I suppose this being early days just knowing we have a platform that can do the job could justify ordering the aircraft and then sort out the details of whether to fly them from the Canberra's exclusively or to obtain a purpose designed platform to take them most the time.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
The Canberra's are an inherently flexible ship, but there are limiting factors, hence the suggestion that for price, a purpose built strike/ASW STOVL carrier, supplemented by the LHD's would be a much better way to go
Several articles earlier this year have reported that Italy's Garibaldi light carrier is up for sale. Too small?, Too old?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It could be done but what is the mission impact ? 4 to 6 Lightnings will need much more space and support than the same number of Tigers. Then there is the question of what they will be doing in mission terms, CAS only, or will they be involved in ISR, maritime strike and air defence? Start adding missions and you rapidly outstrip what can be handled by a detachment of 4 to 6 aircraft, limit them to one mission only and you are wasting one of the most advanced and capable combat aircraft ever developed.

No way around it, to do this properly, either strategic objectives need to change or more big ships, be they amphibs or carriers, need to be bought.
I'm happy to disagree with you on this one V.
Firstly, Tigers are not that small, length 16 mtrs, width 4.5 m, height 3.6m, they are lighter at 3 tonnes. c.f. F-35B length 14.4 m width 10.7m and height 4.6m but they weigh 10 tonnes.
Tigers are a complex system, they are not just a "little" helo plaything so the two are reasonably alike. My experience with embarked rotary wing is that they are certainly manpower maintenance heavy.

Secondly, the Lightning's mission capabilities are available to the command whatever they are and will be tailored to the task at hand (Tailored Air Group).
hat really matters is that they provide a level of flexibility that the Tigers can't and therefore, why limit the commanders options?

LHD is a flexible beast and will evolve over time. One only has to look at the changing roles of the CVL's HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne to see that the current concept of an Amphibious Task Group is likely to morph into several other concepts over the life of these ships.

The big difference between a navy with these ships compared to a navy without is that this flexibility exists. Without them the RAN would be what it is now, a frigate navy and a frigate is a frigate is a frigate ad nauseum.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Several articles earlier this year have reported that Italy's Garibaldi light carrier is up for sale. Too small?, Too old?
all the above and more, would not want to go there, it would just ring of Bill and Ben. And when you look at the price of what a SK or Spanish yard could build one for, why would you want second hand
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm happy to disagree with you on this one V.
Firstly, Tigers are not that small, length 16 mtrs, width 4.5 m, height 3.6m, they are lighter at 3 tonnes. c.f. F-35B length 14.4 m width 10.7m and height 4.6m but they weigh 10 tonnes.
Tigers are a complex system, they are not just a "little" helo plaything so the two are reasonably alike. My experience with embarked rotary wing is that they are certainly manpower maintenance heavy.

Secondly, the Lightning's mission capabilities are available to the command whatever they are and will be tailored to the task at hand (Tailored Air Group).
hat really matters is that they provide a level of flexibility that the Tigers can't and therefore, why limit the commanders options?

LHD is a flexible beast and will evolve over time. One only has to look at the changing roles of the CVL's HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne to see that the current concept of an Amphibious Task Group is likely to morph into several other concepts over the life of these ships.

The big difference between a navy with these ships compared to a navy without is that this flexibility exists. Without them the RAN would be what it is now, a frigate navy and a frigate is a frigate is a frigate ad nauseum.
Fair enough and good points, I suppose I am just wary of trade offs costing more than was expected or anticipated. Heres all lets hope it comes off.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
all the above and more, would not want to go there, it would just ring of Bill and Ben. And when you look at the price of what a SK or Spanish yard could build one for, why would you want second hand
Japan is building Izumo class DDH for less than a Canberra cost us and that is a proper warship with a 30kt+ speed with a destroyer type combat system and phased array radars. No need to go used we could buy or build a new ship for a very reasonable price.

I've made the suggestion previously that the RAN could be better off going for a mix of DDHs, and DDGs instead of selecting a frigate design to replace the ANZACs and then making up hull numbers with the series production of a light, LCS like, frigate incorporating ANZAC ASMD type systems. If Australia does select the F-35B imagine having three 27000 tonne DDHs to base them on. :D
 
It is a given that for a repeat of an East Timor like operation (UN Chapter 7), the navies of UK, NZ and Singapore will form part of the coalition with your country's forces. It is more than likely that all FPDA members will provide force contributions for ground operations.

The reason I am asking is because, it is quite clear that Singapore is trying to develop complementary capabilities to support Australian operations in range of contingencies.
OPSSG - thank you for you're great qualified responses on this and many occasions :)

Are Singapore looking to also potentially participate in response to issues (non-HADR) in SW Pacific (i.e. Solomons, Fiji, Vanuatu and PNG)? I think many would consider that it is given, NZ and Aus would provide military assistance, but would SDF in these scenarios/ contingencies? Is there a domestic political appetite for this to happen, when the area of interest is not directly in the neighbourhood (repeating Timor-leste granted)?

UN resolutions and charters I could see participation.. But hypothetically without one, due to timing issues on resolution ratification?

Thanks
 

Punta74

Member
Japan is building Izumo class DDH for less than a Canberra cost us and that is a proper warship with a 30kt+ speed with a destroyer type combat system and phased array radars. No need to go used we could buy or build a new ship for a very reasonable price.

I've made the suggestion previously that the RAN could be better off going for a mix of DDHs, and DDGs instead of selecting a frigate design to replace the ANZACs and then making up hull numbers with the series production of a light, LCS like, frigate incorporating ANZAC ASMD type systems. If Australia does select the F-35B imagine having three 27000 tonne DDHs to base them on. :D
We need a "like" button. Good idea !!

Hope the people writing the white paper read that....
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
all the above and more, would not want to go there, it would just ring of Bill and Ben. And when you look at the price of what a SK or Spanish yard could build one for, why would you want second hand
also it being about 15K tons its extremely marginal for F35(im not sure that they fit in the hangers lifts) the only carrier smaller is the thai vessel. Plus the above comment(the lack of interest for PdA shows the irrelevance of that size of carrier carrying that age)
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
also it being about 15K tons its extremely marginal for F35(im not sure that they fit in the hangers lifts) the only carrier smaller is the thai vessel. Plus the above comment(the lack of interest for PdA shows the irrelevance of that size of carrier carrying that age)
I believe part of the reason Italy went Cavour was because of the incompatibility and usefulness of its existing carrier. As Spain has as well. The over dimensions are similar, but a F-35 is a lot heavier (deck and lifts) and uses nearly twice as much fuel.

A 3rd LHD makes more sense to me. 3 of the same ship, simplify training, operations, logistics absolutely minimal risk (IOC is very near). The army won't get enough training with 2 ships to be as amphibious enough as it is (nor deploy what has been flagged). Let alone training fixed wing pilots and rotary pilots. With only one carrier, operating F-35B's off and untested, undeveloped and untrained platform when that one carrier is not available isn't ideal.

With 3 LHD you could keep trained 24 F-35B crews, a large number of helo crews, a reasonable rotation of the army for amphibious ops, support sustained deployments etc. I would think Spain could make a very attractive deal for construction.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
OPSSG - thank you for you're great qualified responses on this and many occasions :)
Thanks for tolerating my rambling posts and I aim to be of service.
Are Singapore looking to also potentially participate in response to issues (non-HADR) in SW Pacific (i.e. Solomons, Fiji, Vanuatu and PNG)?
Singapore is a burden sharing partner with the US and Australia because of the premium we place on the relationship. The people-to-people and military-to-military relationship is so strong that individuals will choose to take 6 to 12 months away from their civilian careers to deploy as NSmen, to live in a FOB, in support of Australian led operations - as was the case in East Timor. Beyond NSmen, even conscripts volunteered for the mission in East Timor.

For Iraq and CTF-151 deployments, not only did conscripts volunteer for the mission, some extended their duration of conscription of two years, to complete the mission. They had a hard time explaining to their friends, much less their mothers (that they wanted to go in harms way).

By way of background, the SAF participates in missions based on demand signals from either the US or Australia and we have a very, very low key presence in the Pacific Partnership series with the USN (with embedded SAF medical personnel). And my prior reserve unit was sent in the 1990s to NZ, to plan for a UN support mission with the Kiwis, should the need arise. The need never arose in my time. The need however arose during one of these training sessions in NZ and after the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake. The 116 SAF personnel there for training, at that time, were told, take off your training hat and wear your operational hat, to help out in whatever the NZDF wants. The SAF will fly in whatever the NZDF or NZ Government team needs. And as it turned out the thing that the Kiwis needed most was the SCDF's urban search and rescue team - the army played a low key supporting role (embedded with the NZDF personnel), while 2 RSAF C-130Hs stayed in NZ to help form an air-bridge between the two main NZ islands.

Australia has been quite understanding of our current limitations (due to the fact that we have conscripts embedded at many levels) - we have an involved work-up process (and commander's meet the family sessions, for those to be deployed or on reserve list) before deployments - that tends to limit the speed of our response.

There are two issues with this discussion on demand signals. One, there is no demand signal from Australia (partly because Singapore does not seem to be keen, to be more active in the Pacific). Two, the SAF has important limitations in its ability to deploy simply because the backbone of the SAF is conscription. And it would be hard to explain to a Singaporean mother, why her son, as a conscript is being sent to deploy to location, she has not heard of. Plus how can the son's commanders explain to her what that deployment that has got to do with 'defending Singapore'? Explaining to their mothers is not an easy task for the conscripts deployed for peace support missions off in the Northern Arabian Gulf and in the Gulf of Aden. Keeping in mind that our conscripts are not paid for their service (they are given a NS allowance - i.e.paid less than working in McDonalds).

By way of background, every Singapore son or daughter sent in harms way knows that the armed services have a support system for their family and where possible, their family is briefed prior to the deployment to help them understand the role he or she plays in mission success. The family will also know that he or she who is deployed has volunteered and selection process is competitive - and it means a lot to solider/sailor/airman/policeman that the service person has earned the right to be selected. For everyone who deployed, there are others on the reserve list (on standby to replace those deployed). Simply put, it is not a simple process to be selected; and without family support for the deployment, he cannot be selected. And one of things many do prior to deployment is see their lawyers to get their Wills done.

My family has been involved involved in this process - having family gone in harms way in support of multiple UN missions or for operations. I shall leave the UN missions unnamed but I will give one example. During the SQ117 hijack in March 1991, I had family and close friends in the inner and outer security cordon. We prayed really hard for them that they would come home to us. We heaved a sigh of relief, once we heard news that all 4 hijackers were killed and the hostage rescue was successful.
I think many would consider that it is given, NZ and Aus would provide military assistance, but would SAF in these scenarios/ contingencies?
If the large majority of the forces used in support operations is limited to air or naval side of the house, the SAF would be able to help.

Our interest is to complement the NZDF's role in supporting the ADF in achieving mission success. IMO, there is scope for all 3 countries to work with other allies and partners to provide a complementary range of naval capabilities to support future missions and as we train together for FPDA and other regional exercises.
Is there a domestic political appetite for this to happen, when the area of interest is not directly in the neighbourhood (repeating Timor-leste granted)?
The Singapore government never consults the Singapore public on the SAF's overseas deployments. They inform the public and drum up the support thereafter. For example, the army had a really, really small footprint in Iraq (4 guys) and they did not declassify that until all had come home. So the public is not consulted.

Every Singapore son - is part of the SAF or an uniformed service - therefore, there is no need for public discussion - all our ACTUAL discussions take place in a classified setting. Once we discuss something in public, it has already been declassified.
UN resolutions and charters I could see participation.. But hypothetically without one, due to timing issues on resolution ratification?
The SAF takes part in peace support missions; and we would assist once the appropriate UN resolution is in place, with our UN standby force. Force preparation activities do take place prior to UN resolution.
 
Last edited:

t68

Well-Known Member
I believe part of the reason Italy went Cavour was because of the incompatibility and usefulness of its existing carrier. As Spain has as well. The over dimensions are similar, but a F-35 is a lot heavier (deck and lifts) and uses nearly twice as much fuel.

A 3rd LHD makes more sense to me. 3 of the same ship, simplify training, operations, logistics absolutely minimal risk (IOC is very near). The army won't get enough training with 2 ships to be as amphibious enough as it is (nor deploy what has been flagged). Let alone training fixed wing pilots and rotary pilots. With only one carrier, operating F-35B's off and untested, undeveloped and untrained platform when that one carrier is not available isn't ideal.

With 3 LHD you could keep trained 24 F-35B crews, a large number of helo crews, a reasonable rotation of the army for amphibious ops, support sustained deployments etc. I would think Spain could make a very attractive deal for construction.
In real terms three LHD are need to complete the needs of an ARG irrespective if you place F35 on board the minimum requirments is two ships either the LHD/LPD combanation or LHD/LHD with only two LHD and one LPD we cannot guarantee shipping will be available at short notice.

The way I see it we need the third LHD and another Bay so we can have either a LHD/LPD or LHD/LHD combanation at all times. Two Canberra cost us 3billion AUD I would imagine a new build Bay would run into about 400 million so for an additional 2billion AUD we could have 3x LHD&2x LPD. The other option depending on how the next SDSR 2015 comes out is POW she's set up for both strike and airborne Assult that would give the LHD the flexibility to handle helots& fixed wing on as needed basis without diminishing the LHD from its core role pure speculation on how much POW would be but it still gives you flex ability on troop lift and fixed wing operations, manning the POW would mean extra crew compared to an extra LHD-LPD 2 ship build.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
A third LHD for Australia around about 2030 makes some sense. This would match up with the replacement of the superhornet, and the HMAS Choules would be coming up for replacement about then. Also the first two Canberra class ships would be up for midlife refits around the early 30s, so a extra LHD would be useful at that time.
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Yes he does....

Wouldn't happen to be a guest writer who wrote an article in an aviation magazine that hit the news stands yesterday by any chance??
Not sure...:)

I meant from other forums where he always makes very reasonable and balanced points. :cool:
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Not sure...:)

I meant from other forums where he always makes very reasonable and balanced points. :cool:
Not sure? Ok, hmmm.....

Anyway, all jokes aside, yes his contribution was very good, reasonable and balanced as you said too.

Maybe if you get to 'talk' to him again soon (?) you can encourage him to stick around and contribute more regularly if possible.

Cheers,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top